Subject: Re: bug#12541: Prefer plain 'static' to 'static inline'.

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:49:46 +0200

> Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 01:00:25 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
> 
> This one should be pretty self-explanatory.
> 
> === modified file 'src/ChangeLog'
> --- src/ChangeLog	2012-09-30 07:26:32 +0000
> +++ src/ChangeLog	2012-09-30 07:57:28 +0000
> @@ -1,3 +1,98 @@
> +2012-09-30  Paul Eggert  <[email-masked]>
> +
> +	Prefer plain 'static' to 'static inline'.
> +	With static functions, modern compilers inline pretty well by
> +	themselves; advice from programmers often hurts as much as it helps.
> +	On my host (x86-64, Fedora 17, GCC 4.7.2, default 'configure'),
> +	this change shrinks the text size of the Emacs executable by 1.7%
> +	without affecting CPU significantly in my benchmark.

Since what version of GCC we can trust that static functions are
inlined?

The inline functions in bidi.c _must_ be inlined for performance
reasons.  If the only way to make sure they are is to make them
external, then so be it.